Anglo-Catholic Justification Question

[jinc1019]

I've never heard a 100 percent definitive answer about this. What do Anglo-Catholics teach about the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone?

 

[Albion]

I've never heard a 100 percent definitive answer about this. What do Anglo-Catholics teach about the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone?

There is no absolute, agreed upon definition of the term. Nevertheless, it's probably correct to say that most do not agree with Sola Fide.

 

[jinc1019]

There is no absolute, agreed upon definition of the term. Nevertheless, it's probably correct to say that most do not agree with Sola Fide.

Thanks! Do you know what Newman's view on this was?

 

[jinc1019]

Thanks! Do you know what Newman's view on this was?

Before he left Anglicanism, of course.

 

[Albion]

Newman's opinion, in my view, is difficult to pin down. The movement began as an attempt to recover the Catholic heritage within Anglicanism and so he was attempting to harmonize Reformed theology with Catholic theology. The result is, IMHO, an ambiguous answer.

To me, it looks a lot like agreeing with Justification by Faith, properly understood, but other people see it as not being just that. Keep in mind that this is where the movement started. If the question is about today's so-called Anglo-Catholics, they are much less conflicted. Again though, I'm sure other people will have a different "take" on the subject.

 

[jinc1019]

Interesting. From what I just read of Newman, it does seem unclear. I am much more interested in today's Anglo-Catholics, however, which is what you addressed first. From what I've read of them, it seems unclear in some ways. They spend a lot of time bashing the Reformation, but they don't talk much about justification directly, and when they do, it seems to be very ambiguous. I would love to know what, specifically, Anglo-Catholics believe about Luther's view on this.

 

[Albion]

Most, I'm sure, would say that they reject Luther's view. Again, though, it's hard to identify what exactly IS Anglo-Catholicism, and those who call themselves by the term vary considerably. Most, however, probably agree with just about everything the Roman Church stands for except for the Marian dogmas enunciated recently by ex cathedra, Transubstantiation, Purgatory and Indulgences, and (of course) Papal Supremacy. But I do know self-described Anglo-Catholics who do accept as true each one of them, with of course a little gray area thrown in along the lines that would be similar to what liberal Roman Catholics contend for (Purgatory is not painful but more like an orientation session before entering heaven, Transubstantiation except for an explanation of how it occurs, etc.).

 

[Feuerbach]

In my experience with Anglo-Catholics (both in TEC and in the Continuum) it broke down into three groups: 1) A small group that agree with sola fide in a way that would conform to Luther and/or Calvin. 2) A small group that are totally okay with the Roman doctrine of faith and works. 3) A majority that could broadly be described as subscribing to sola fide who are strongly in the synergism camp (as opposed to the monergisms of the Reformed and Lutheran traditions) as much as one can be without affirming the "and works" aspect of Rome and the East.

Whether my experience matches the greater reality, who the heck knows.

 

[jinc1019]

Most, I'm sure, would say that they reject Luther's view. Again, though, it's hard to identify what exactly IS Anglo-Catholicism, and those who call themselves by the term vary considerably. Most, however, probably agree with just about everything the Roman Church stands for except for the Marian dogmas enunciated recently by ex cathedra, Transubstantiation, Purgatory and Indulgences, and (of course) Papal Supremacy. But I do know self-described Anglo-Catholics who do accept as true each one of them, with of course a little gray area thrown in along the lines that would be similar to what liberal Roman Catholics contend for (Purgatory is not painful but more like an orientation session before entering heaven, Transubstantiation except for an explanation of how it occurs, etc.).

Right, that makes sense.

I think the question I'm most interested in having an Anglo-Catholic answer is this: If a person has a true, living faith (as opposed to a dead faith, like the one James describes), will that person be justified if he or she dies with that living faith, without any exceptions? If the answer is yes, I can live with that, even though I disagree with a lot of other Anglo-Catholic beliefs.

However, if an Anglo-Catholic were to say to me that a person, no matter how much true faith he or she has, is not considered justified at death unless he or she has done some specific act or actions, then I don't think I could be in communion with that person. I think that's the "false Gospel" we hear so much about in scripture. It's the most fundamental reason I'm not Roman Catholic, in fact. The RCC plainly says that no matter how much faith you have, if you openly reject certain teachings (such as certain Marian teachings for instance), you damn yourself to hell no matter how much faith you have, unless you are ignorant or being coerced. But a well-informed, free rejection of any important RCC theological dogma is considered a grave, mortal sin, regardless of faith.

I'm trying to figure out if an Anglo-Catholic would hold to the same view or not.

 

[jinc1019]

In my experience with Anglo-Catholics (both in TEC and in the Continuum) it broke down into three groups: 1) A small group that agree with sola fide in a way that would conform to Luther and/or Calvin. 2) A small group that are totally okay with the Roman doctrine of faith and works. 3) A majority that could broadly be described as subscribing to sola fide who are strongly in the synergism camp (as opposed to the monergisms of the Reformed and Lutheran traditions) as much as one can be without affirming the "and works" aspect of Rome and the East.

Whether my experience matches the greater reality, who the heck knows.

Very interesting, thanks. I'm less concerned about the synergism piece, since lots of people who believe in sola fide also believe in some form of synergism, even if a person could logically argue the two views are incompatible (I probably would).

 

[Albion]

There no doubt are some who hold that view. And others who do not. Since there is no "official" or definitive spokesman for Anglo-Catholicism or even a denomination that is the "final word" on Anglo-Catholicism, and we've already said that Anglo-Catholics come in a variety of forms, I don't know how any answer can settle things for you.

I do hope that you get a response here from an Anglo-Catholic, though, and that it provides the guidance that will be what you're looking for.

 

[jinc1019]

There no doubt are some who hold that view. And others who do not. Since there is no "official" or definitive spokesman for Anglo-Catholicism or even a denomination that is the "final word" on Anglo-Catholicism, and we've already said that Anglo-Catholics come in a variety of forms, I don't know how any answer can settle things for you.

I do hope that you get a response here from an Anglo-Catholic, though, and that it provides the guidance that will be what you're looking for.

Oh I understand all that. There really isn't anything more you or anyone else who isn't an Anglo-Catholic could do. I'm really just hoping to talk to someone who is an Anglo-Catholic at this point.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The Roman Catholic and Lutheran World Federation Joint Statement on Justification:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Not entirely on-topic, but kind of related. I thought some might be interested.

 

[jinc1019]

Thanks!

 

[Arcangl86]

I identify as an Anglo-Catholic, so I'll give this a try. I am Sola Fide to the extent that what ever I do isn't going to make me any more worthy of salvation in God's eyes. But at the same time, as part of being justified by my faith in God, I am then granted the ability to move forward in holiness. Honestly it's not something I gave a whole bunch of thought on, and I reserve the right to come back and put in an additional word after thinking on it some.

 

[jinc1019]

I identify as an Anglo-Catholic, so I'll give this a try. I am Sola Fide to the extent that what ever I do isn't going to make me any more worthy of salvation in God's eyes. But at the same time, as part of being justified by my faith in God, I am then granted the ability to move forward in holiness. Honestly it's not something I gave a whole bunch of thought on, and I reserve the right to come back and put in an additional word after thinking on it some.

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure I'd disagree with anything you have said at this point. My real concern is whether you'd say a person cannot be justified regardless of how much true, live faith he has because of some work or belief he or she holds or doesn't hold. This is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. No matter how much faith you have, no matter how closely you live your life to the teachings of the Bible, you can lose your salvation if you do or don't do certain things, such as openly questioning the Marian teachings, for instance.

 

[Arcangl86]

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure I'd disagree with anything you have said at this point. My real concern is whether you'd say a person cannot be justified regardless of how much true, live faith he has because of some work or belief he or she holds or doesn't hold. This is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. No matter how much faith you have, no matter how closely you live your life to the teachings of the Bible, you can lose your salvation if you do or don't do certain things, such as openly questioning the Marian teachings, for instance.

Nope. We are put on the path to holiness by God, but we can never get there. That doesn't stop us from being accepted by God in the end. Only God is truly holy, and a truly just God is not going to hold narrow legalistic standards that are by their nature impossible to meet. Also one of the key aspects of being Anglo-Catholic is the radically incarnational nature of it. God so desired relationship with us that he became man. Everything else is secondary to that. Our faith is about relationship, not a checklist of things done or theological views held.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure I'd disagree with anything you have said at this point. My real concern is whether you'd say a person cannot be justified regardless of how much true, live faith he has because of some work or belief he or she holds or doesn't hold. This is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. No matter how much faith you have, no matter how closely you live your life to the teachings of the Bible, you can lose your salvation if you do or don't do certain things, such as openly questioning the Marian teachings, for instance.

We are justified by true living faith.

True living faith requires belief in certain dogmas (de fide) (this would include among other things a recognition of the need to repent of sin by the power of the Cross).

Failure to hold required belief or to repent of sin is a sign of a lack of true and living faith.

The only difference between our beliefs would be what constitutes doctrines de fide and thus what is to be required in order to have the faith by which we are justified. As you mentioned, the Marian doctrines are de fide for Roman Catholics. Anglicans would stick to a smaller number of essential beliefs.

What is in the creeds would be considered necessary to be believed. Explications from the ecumenical councils are similarly held of high importance. The writings of the Fathers and the formularies provide further explication of these doctrines. All are held to be under the final authority of Holy Scripture as God's revealed World, containing all things necessary to salvation.

To phrase the point of losing justification/salvation by "works" here is a hypothetical.

I am a believer. I am baptised. I am saved. I commit adultery and reject Biblical and Church teaching that this is sinful, and therefore never repent of this act. Am I still justified?

Can I at that point truly claim to believe? Do I have faith. Faith is judged by its fruit (works) and my works show that my faith is lacking, even if it was sufficient at one point, because now for whatever reason (viewing Biblical/Church teaching as archaic and so far apart from social mores that they can simply be ignored is typical in these cases, at least among Canadian Anglicans) I am placing myself in God's seat of judgement in order to say what is and isn't acceptable.

At any rate, I've always appreciated this definition of Anglo-Catholicism (because contrary to what many people today believe, Anglo-Catholicism is more than just stealing Roman ritual) and in the scenario I've described, I would be violating the high view of the Atonement if I were to ignore the role of confession and repentance that comes with exploring works as the fruits of our faith.

 

[Paidiske]

I think the question I'm most interested in having an Anglo-Catholic answer is this: If a person has a true, living faith (as opposed to a dead faith, like the one James describes), will that person be justified if he or she dies with that living faith, without any exceptions? If the answer is yes, I can live with that, even though I disagree with a lot of other Anglo-Catholic beliefs.

However, if an Anglo-Catholic were to say to me that a person, no matter how much true faith he or she has, is not considered justified at death unless he or she has done some specific act or actions, then I don't think I could be in communion with that person. I think that's the "false Gospel" we hear so much about in scripture. It's the most fundamental reason I'm not Roman Catholic, in fact. The RCC plainly says that no matter how much faith you have, if you openly reject certain teachings (such as certain Marian teachings for instance), you damn yourself to hell no matter how much faith you have, unless you are ignorant or being coerced. But a well-informed, free rejection of any important RCC theological dogma is considered a grave, mortal sin, regardless of faith.

I don't self-identify as Anglo-Catholic, but I've been a sympathetic fellow-traveller in that stream for a while.

My sense of the Anglo-Catholic take on this (at least, in Australia, which may have its own quirks), is that if a person dies with a true, living faith, that person will be in the nearer presence of God after death. (I am carefully avoiding saying "go to heaven" as I think that's problematic, but read for that whatever you understand of that).

If a person has unorthodox beliefs outside the essentials of the faith, or has done something wrong from which they have not (yet) repented, but which is not in itself a rejection of God, that is not enough, in this view as I understand it, to condemn a person after death.

 

[jinc1019]

We are justified by true living faith.

True living faith requires belief in certain dogmas (de fide) (this would include among other things a recognition of the need to repent of sin by the power of the Cross).

Failure to hold required belief or to repent of sin is a sign of a lack of true and living faith.

The only difference between our beliefs would be what constitutes doctrines de fide and thus what is to be required in order to have the faith by which we are justified. As you mentioned, the Marian doctrines are de fide for Roman Catholics. Anglicans would stick to a smaller number of essential beliefs.

What is in the creeds would be considered necessary to be believed. Explications from the ecumenical councils are similarly held of high importance. The writings of the Fathers and the formularies provide further explication of these doctrines. All are held to be under the final authority of Holy Scripture as God's revealed World, containing all things necessary to salvation.

To phrase the point of losing justification/salvation by "works" here is a hypothetical.

I am a believer. I am baptised. I am saved. I commit adultery and reject Biblical and Church teaching that this is sinful, and therefore never repent of this act. Am I still justified?

Can I at that point truly claim to believe? Do I have faith. Faith is judged by its fruit (works) and my works show that my faith is lacking, even if it was sufficient at one point, because now for whatever reason (viewing Biblical/Church teaching as archaic and so far apart from social mores that they can simply be ignored is typical in these cases, at least among Canadian Anglicans) I am placing myself in God's seat of judgement in order to say what is and isn't acceptable.

At any rate, I've always appreciated this definition of Anglo-Catholicism (because contrary to what many people today believe, Anglo-Catholicism is more than just stealing Roman ritual) and in the scenario I've described, I would be violating the high view of the Atonement if I were to ignore the role of confession and repentance that comes with exploring works as the fruits of our faith.

Very interesting and instructive, thanks. I guess the problem we run into then is how do we determine which teachings MUST be believed and which do not? For the RCC, it's (basically) whatever the Magisterium declares authoritatively to be held by all. For most Protestants, it's the teachings contained in scripture (and nothing else). What do Anglo-Catholics believe about this?